What do you mean by "then"? The hidden premise here is that in order for the computer to create a proposition, the computer needs to distinguish propositions from garbage. Why would you hold that premise?Then how can it make a proposition? — Olivier5
On October 1, 2021, I caused a computer to generate statements that are accurate representations of states of affairs. The computer generated those statements at 10:03:44pm on that day.Because a proposition is a statement that is proposed as a fair or accurate representation of some state of affairs. — Olivier5
You have the same problem classifying strings as sentences... either you don't know these words mean or you're special pleading.At best, your computer is writing a sentence, at worse it is spaying black dots on a screen, which you interpret as a proposition. — Olivier5
1. It "makes sense to say" that strings that fall into the class of strings I would interpret as propositions, are propositions.it makes no sense to say that a proposition no one knows about is true. — Olivier5
That's fine, and I have no problem with that per se, except that you did explicitly appeal to the "makes no sense to say" criteria (which you even bolded, FTR), and it's that which I'm demonstrating. If you can prove it does not genuinely make sense to say what I'm saying, that would be relevant. Otherwise, you cannot appeal to the "makes no sense to say" criteria to defend your own interpretation.That you interpret as such. I don't. — Olivier5
To know S is a proposition, it is not necessary to know S.
Why is this so difficult? — InPitzotl
No, Olivier5, we haven't been through "this", because "this" refers to what you just linked to. That "this" is a post where I pointed out your bolded "makes no sense to say that" criteria. Not only did I point that out in the reply you're pretending to reply to, but that was the entire point of the post you're pretending to reply to!We've been through this — Olivier5
None of these are in the form "it makes no sense to say that". What is the thing you're claiming it makes no sense to say? Without that thing, you're not even going over "this" in this reply.A proposition needs to be proposed as a true representation. Otherwise it is at best a sentence. You do all the proposing, your computer none. Your computer is merely your sockpuppet. — Olivier5
Not my concern. I'm not bound by your theories that propositions require a proposer, so I don't have to name one. If you can't find one, once again, that's a you problem, not a me problem. If you can figure out an answer, knock yourself out. If you can't, maybe consider giving that up. I don't require it; so I'm all good.So who is doing the proposing then? — Olivier5
I'm not bound by your theories that proposing requires a proposer, so I don't have to name one — InPitzotl
Lexical has another sense: "relating to or of the nature of a lexicon or dictionary". That's closer to what is meant. "Lexically" in this particular sense refers to "how" the strings are prior/successive to each other, i.e., in what sense they are; it's referring to a lexical ordering.As formulated, the statement is a bit unclear because "lexical" means "relating to words or the vocabulary of a language as distinguished from its grammar and construction". — Olivier5
It's slightly more precise to say "lexical", since that describes what the sorted function does with strings. "alphabetical" works because I'm limiting this to strings containing only capital letters and 8 characters, but then, so does "numerical" with your prior mapping given this description, which is why I didn't bother commenting on it then.Assuming you mean something like "comes in alphabetic order before", then the statement could be interpreted as a true proposition. — Olivier5
I'm fine with that. Here, I've analyzed TMP's latest proofs, and don't have any particular issues with them, outside of the fact that they could probably be made a bit clearer by organizing it a little better.As I read the article in Stanford, Fitche's Paradox is using the word "truth" in the sense of a statement about the real world — EricH
Understood; the point of the program was just to test certain ideas about what a proposition is. It kind of had to be mathematical, because I wanted it in the post, this makes it short, and that would make it much easier to explain to someone who might not be familiar with programming if need be. I also felt it worthwhile to make the examples concrete rather than hypothetical.Put differently, Fitch is talking about apples and your program is doing math. So not even apples & oranges. — EricH
Sure. I'm perfectly happy with counterfactuals, and it suffices for me that "were I to read it, I would classify it as a proposition". I think I apply the same criteria to other things; "were I to see this animal, I would classify it as a fox" suffices for me to call the thing a fox; "were I to see this object, I would call it an ice cube" suffices for me to call it an ice cube, etc.But that aside, suppose your program were to write each line out to a file and then delete that file before generating the next line? Would you still consider your program to be generating propositions? — EricH
Suppose p is a sentence that is an unknown truth; that is, the sentence p is true, but it is not known that p is true. — Wikipedia
Let q=¬p. Then ¬p→K¬p is simply q→Kq, which is the same as p→Kp (under a change in labels). — InPitzotl
I don't think you're quite following this.
1. Let q=¬p.
2. Then ¬p→K¬p is simply q→Kq
3. q→Kq is the same as p→Kp with change of labels.
1: I'm just defining another variable.
2: When you see "¬p", you can replace it with "q". That's just substitution. Do you have a problem with substitution?
3: Specifically, we're relabeling q as p. Do you have a problem relabeling? — InPitzotl
I think you mean that if p is a falsehood, and q = ¬p, then q is true. So you have a falsehood p, and a truth q. So if there's logic requiring q to be true, you can put your falsehood into p.If q = ¬p, q is true. — TheMadFool
Which argument are you referring to?Yes, but for Olivier5's argument to work ¬p should be false. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.